In Defense of Duck Dynasty
I wish I could say that the recent kerfuffle over Phil Robertson’s comments regarding homosexuality and marriage were a complete surprise but I could have predicted this a year ago. Mark mentioned the controversy and the comment section of his post has demonstrated the type of measured judgement that I think we are pretty good at around the OT. Robertson, Dog the Bounty Hunter and Paula Deen are of a generation that is fading away so one assumes we will see less of this in the future (although it isn’t going to way completely as evidenced by 26 year-old NFL player Riley Cooper dropping an n-bomb recently).
The only thing I will say about these comments specifically is that the homosexual remarks, while not an opinion I share, are completely in line with Robertson’s faith and I do not believe they come from a place of malice. On race, he sounds like a lot of other older Southerners I know that have a more rosy view of Segregation. I’ve heard comments like these for my entire life with friends and family members who grew up in the South during this period. Part of me thinks that this is largely because segregation was so darn effective. My mother told me a story once about a popular amusement park that she attended growing up and never realized it was segregated until after it was de-segregated and she thought, “Oh, there weren’t black people here before.” Children have an amazing ability to overlook the obvious at times. For myself I grew up in a lily-white community, attended an all-white Catholic school and barely had any contact with blacks until high school at which time I had the opportunity to actually think about the existence of more than one race. Again, it is amazing what we ignore when it is easy to do so.
As for what this incident means for the future of Duck Dynasty, I can’t say. There is a lot of cultural pressure to put distance between these types of remarks and the channel that airs the show but the show is also wildly popular. A trip to any retail store these days will confirm this. I was recently at Walgreens and had an opportunity to purchase Duck Dynasty candy bars, bobbleheads and some kind of weird plush toys, all of which I declined. A & E is making millions off of licensing and the family is getting richer by the minute. But like all cultural phenomenons, it has to end.
For a little background regarding the Duck Commander company and its history, the basic story is pretty well known. Phil started making duck calls out of his garage, Willie took over the company and greatly increased their business and eventually they ended up on TV. But for those of us in the hunting community, this has been a process we have watched for years.
Back in the 90s hunting shows on TV were very sanitized. With the exception of a few standouts the hosts of the shows were always very clean-cut and presentable to the general public. I remember watching Ducks Unlimited in those days which was hosted by a former actor and all the cast dressed like they just stepped out of the Eddie Bauer catalog. For many of us, including a bunch of late-teen kids in Kentucky that were going into the woods in Walmart camo, there was a real disconnect. At that time Duck Commander begin producing hunting videos and we saw for the first time the Duckmen (as they were called in those days) sporting huge beards, spitting tobacco and covering their faces in black paint and we were entranced. I remember watching the videos on VHS in a friend’s basement and thinking, “This is what hunting is really like.” In those early days Phil was able to be much more outspoken about his faith. I distinctly remember one video where they finished killing a bunch of ducks and then Phil told them to pack it up because they had to get to church. That was nearly 20 years ago.
As the company grew they eventually ended up on the Outdoor Channel with a hybrid hunting/reality show. This was when other networks began to see some potential in their story. I must admit I thought that show was perfect because I wanted to see more hunting. Below is a promo video for that series.
If you watch DD today you will see very little actual hunting and to my knowledge they have never shown a duck actually being hit mid-flight. They are careful to keep that away from a public that is often squeamish about hunting. What they have instead created is a portrait of a family that is loving and committed to one another, while also a little nuts. The Robertson’s live by a motto that Phil created which is “God – Family – Ducks.” As someone who is plugged-in to the hunting community I can tell you that this has been embraced and adapted by many other hunters in the last couple of years. For many of us hunting has never just been a sport, it is a way of life. Many hunters also lean slightly to the Right and so the emphasis on God and family is popular.
The thinking among many of us is that the show will run its course, as all things do in pop-culture, and that the Robertsons will get back to just hunting, which is what they do best. They still have a popular series of pure-hunting videos that come out regularly and this is what the hunting community will continue to support regardless of this latest controversy. For that reason Duck Dynasty continues to have relevance because in the long-term they are helping to grow this outdoor calling that we love so much.
Controversies come and go. I am not convinced that Phil’s views on race extend beyond his generation. Willie’s best friend is a black man and he has an adopted mixed-race child. Those seem like good signs. If their shared faith means they all despise homosexuality then with a family as large as theirs it is very possible they will have a gay or lesbian child in the fold someday and that has an amazing way of softening bigotry among caring relatives.
In the short term I remain interested in how this will play out in the media and with the network. I will leave NPR’s Linda Holmes with the last words on this subject,
“For another, it seems vanishingly unlikely that A&E has filmed Phil for 50 episodes and didn’t know he felt this way. That makes it hard to believe the suspension is meant to send Phil off to rethink his position on gay people or learn to be more tolerant if they haven’t done so before. It seems that Real Phil is instead being suspended for opening his mouth to GQ and fussing with the carefully maintained image of Show Phil by telling people what he actually thinks — by telling people who have appreciated his family’s devotion to devotion, as it were, about the parts of their faith that A&E doesn’t talk about.”
Mike Dwyer is a freelance writer in Louisville, KY. He writes about culture, the outdoors and whatever else strikes his fancy. His personal site can be found at www.mikedwyerwrites.com. He is also active on Facebook and Twitter. Mike is one of several Kentucky authors featured in the book This I Believe: Kentucky.
I certainly agree on a few things. A and E knew what his views were but kept them out of the show like they apparently did, as you say, with seeing actual hunting. His views are largely of his generation and are much less common in those younger. Those views will fade to a degree in the next couple decades. The Duck’s will be just fine out of all of this, they are rich, popular and apparently Mr. Duck is now stumping for a R pol. There new season will draw huge numbers and it wouldn’t surprise me at all if the Duck’s new they were going to stock this controversy and were fine with that. Given how common some of his beliefs are in places i also have no problem with other people who don’t share those beliefs saying how they disagree. The beliefs he espoused have had a strongly negative effect on lots of people. The victims of those beliefs are going to have their say, loudly and publicly, now that they have become able to.Report
Thank you for the back-story of the show and family. I’ve been banging my head against the wall trying to figure out what people became so enamoured with. I still don’t get it, but I’m not a hunter and I typically disdain these so-called “reality” shows.Report
Oh i forgot to say regarding your first couple of paragraphs. My very first thought when i heard about this was sort of an Onion headline ” Oldish southern conservative man who loves to hunt aims to confirm every common stereotype about his kind of people: Hits target.”Report
I agree with Greg’s comments. I would also point out (and have done so before) that the whole bearded backwoods things is a kind of PR move and stunt itself. Phil Robertson has a Masters in Education from Louisiana State University. Pre-show pictures of the sons show them looking like Santa Barbara yuppies on the beach.
Yes he is a product of his time and place but his time and place are rapidly becoming unacceptable and I don’t think it is wrong for people to find his views wrong and cruel. Josh Barro pointed this out at Business Insider and Slate. There are two Americas and in one you can say the most horrible things about homosexuals (“they’re full of murder, envy, strife, and hatred.”, blame Pearl Harbor on the Japanese lacking Jesus, and think blacks were better off before the Civil Rights Movement. This America will have people comparing you to Rosa Parks:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/20/ian-bayne-duck-dynasty_n_4480745.html
Verbatim quote:
“In December 1955, Rosa Parks took a stand against an unjust societal persecution of black people, and in December 2013, Robertson took a stand against persecution of Christians. What Parks did was courageous. What Mr. Robertson did was courageous too.”
And in the other America all these things are wrong, rude, offensive, and immoral.Report
There is always a difficult transition from employer to employee WRT public statements. As the owner of Duck Commander, Phil can say whatever he pleases. As an employee of A&E, not so much (and remain an employee). In the course of my lengthy corporate career, it was always understood that if I was speaking in the role of “Michael Cain, USWest systems analyst”, then there were a lot of things that were strictly off limits. If a question crossed certain lines, I was expected to just say, “I can’t talk about that.” And if I didn’t, it was potentially a fire-able offense.
OTOH, part of the job of a good interviewer for a piece like GQ wanted to run is to get people to cross those lines.Report
I think part of the GQ article was showing how much editing and polishing A&E did to make the family come off as more loveable and hide their more reprehensible views.
http://thinkprogress.org/alyssa/2013/12/19/3089521/duck-dynasty-controversy-perfect-media-scandal-2013/#Report
http://www.slate.com/blogs/business_insider/2013/12/20/phil_robertson_duck_dynasty_and_the_two_americas.htmlReport
“are completely in line with Robertson’s faith and I do not believe they come from a place of malice.”
I want point out that it is possible that his claims come from his faith AND a place of malice. It isn’t necessarily either his faith or malice, where one excludes the other.
Moreover, his claims being rooted in religion and tradition are no more a defense of his claims than saying the fact that slavery was rooted in tradition and religion is a defense of slave owners.
And yes, obviously slavery was orders of magnitude worse.Report
plus oneReport
Bear in mind though that for lots of folks, the malice is a) invisible to themselves, cloaked behind the noble mantle of religion as well as inescapable human nature, and b) sublimated into privilege and the cultural status quo. They don’t feel like they’re being malicious; they would say they are being descriptive and not normative, and that they are personally “live and let live” sort of tolerant folks. Shining a light on the error of such thinking is going to produce genuine surprise as well as defensive pushback.Report
This is a good point and is true for all sorts of things especially the sublimated into privilege and the cultural status quo bit.
People often have a very narrow definition of malice and what it means to discriminate.Report
+1 Burt. I think if someones background is in an oft persecuted minority group, when you hear a member of a large powerful group say ” love; God; those minorities are dangerous Others; love; God; wouldn’t it be great if we were all the same; God;” that scans quite a bit differently to some than it does to the majority. To me there is a tiny voice saying, “Yeah we’ve heard that song before and it ended in tragedy, well at least for the minority.Report
It seems that Real Phil is instead being suspended for opening his mouth to GQ and fussing with the carefully maintained image of Show Phil by telling people what he actually thinks
For which A&E has every right to fire him. The kind-of-amusing thing to me is that if the Ducks’ job were being outsourced, the same pundits that are defending them now would be applauding the wonders of creative destruction, but they consider it an outrage that Phil Duck is being fired for cause.Report
Outsourcing?
“Peking Duck Dynasty!”Report
That is an idea I can get behind.Report
You know, so when the shotgun blows open and kills the entire hunting party, they can explain what a good thing it is that Elbonia doesn’t have those nanny-state safety regulations.Report
I was under the impression that the show was produced by a company owned by the Robertson family, not by A&E. A&E buys the show (or not) but it doesn’t make it. Am I incorrect?
Even if Duck Dynasty never sees TV broadcast again, why couldn’t it thrive, perhaps in transformed form, as a web series? Lots of kids are only barely aware of Kay & Peele as a TV show because for them it’s a web thing. DD could be the same way.Report
What the hell do you expect when you hire someone named P. Robertson?Report
I think if I disagree with you anywhere, Mike, it’s right here:
First off, I should say that I get that times are changing, and that this makes it difficult for some. For example, I never thought of Paula Deen as being a bad person for what she said; I just thought her degree of cluelessness was a little bizarre in 2013. And I really do believe that you can be a certain type of Christian, believe that homosexuality is wrong, and come from a place that lacks malice.
But I confess it’s hard for me to parse this out…
… and not find a healthy dose of very deliberate malice.
We have people here at OT who have different thoughts about gay people than I do (even contributors), and I certainly never have a sense that their view comes from a place of ill will. But the thing is, I can’t imagine any of them saying anything remotely like the things Robertson says.
Whenever we talk about people who are different than ourselves, be they people of a different gender, race, sexual orientation, etc., there’s always this line that, once it’s crossed, suddenly isn’t just folks being folks any longer. I have to say, I think Phil Robertson steps over that line with a lot of room to spare.Report
+1000
The “He’s just a nice old guy who is a product of his times” is not a valid defense against this kind of incendiary and vile rhetoric.
I’m tempted to say that there is a real analogy between the banality of evil and the banality of racism, but that is a longer post.Report
incendiary and vile rhetoric.
I think you are overstating this.Report
If the remarks that Tod quoted are “completely in line with Robertson’s faith”, than Robertson’s faith is one I find appalling.Report
This raises the question if whether these remarks are with malice or not is a distinction without a difference.
You are right that times are changing and people grew up in different times and eras and might not be ready for it. But if two people are opposed to civil rights for minorities or gay marriage, does it matter whether they have malice in their heart or not? I suppose you can argue that people without malice can have their minds changed but what if they cannot?
What if they are still willing to fight tooth and nail against gay marriage because of their views even though the world is rapidly saying the old rules and beliefs are wrong and were wrong and need to be changed? Is the answer that we just treat the left-behind with pity?Report
I agree, if his views are simply the product of his religion, then his religion is bad and he should feel bad.Report
He also said:
Tell me where in the bible does it say that men should find vaginas desirable? The biblical condemnation of homosexuality is an aspect of its broader condemnation of lust. That Robertson condemns homosexuality as a sin by celebrating heterosexual desire rather misses the point.
When we look back at the preachers who used the bible to defend slavery and the subjugation of non-European peoples, we rightly recognize that they were imposing their own twisted moral structure on the biblical text, rather than drawing guidance from their religious beliefs. Likewise, modern condemnations of homosexuality are not based in biblical condemnations of homosexuality–they are the product of those looking to justify an existing belief structure.Report
And perhaps another problem, or perhaps the underlying problem with this attitude, is that he really views a woman as a walking support system for a vagina.
To reduce love and sex to lusting after particular body parts shows an incredible shallowness regardless of orientation.
Also, note to Phil: Not all gay men are into anal sex. True fact.Report
Tod – I was responding primarily due to what I have read about the GQ interview. The remarks you quoted were new to me. You’re right that this crosses a line.Report
The first time I saw it too.
The claims seem rather odd to me. Murder? Envy? Etc.?
It makes me wonder if he wasn’t making generalizations that go far beyond gays.
Not the ordinary sort of thing I would expect to hear from persons opposed to homosexuality in specific on the basis of specific articles of faith.
Other than that, I think the whole kerfluffle smacks of the “King Diamond is a Satanist” trope.
When King Diamond invites me to go to church with him, I’ll keep that in mind.
Until then, I’m not looking for King Diamond to give me any kind of spiritual guidance.Report
“They’re full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant, God-haters. They are heartless, they are faithless, they are senseless, they are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil.”
I find it absolutely appalling that someone would say something like that about gay people. That sort of rhetoric should be reserved for CEOs and investment bankers.Report
well as far as i remember no gay people having reckless wild gambling sex has ever crashed the worlds economy. banks and investors treating housing as a gambling market did. so yeah, you’re almost right.Report
Citation?Report
If you can rationalize your bigotry, it’s okay!Report
@brandon-berg
You realize it is one thing to say, “The bankers who caused the recession were selfish jerks,” and another to say, “All bankers are selfish jerks”, right? Like, you’re just playing dumb, right? You don’t think those are one in the same, right?
Because many people said the former. Far, far fewer send the former and they tended to be pretty radical. And no where that I saw did they suggest that all bankers were full of murder.
Yet what Robertson said was that all gays were full of murder and envy and strife and hatred. Not the Jeffrey Dahmers of the world — a gay man who indeed was full of murder and hatred — but all gays. Gays like our own Russell Saunders and North.
tl;dr: Cut the bullshit. Criticism of a specific set of professionals who caused real world harm to people is not the same as classifying an entire subsection of the population of evil because of who and how they love.Report
@kazzy
Yes, I understand the distinction. I just think you give Russell too much credit. If you had responded to my original comment as Russell did, I would have assumed the former interpretation. Given Russell’s history here, though, he strikes me as exactly the sort of person I had in mind with my original comment, and given the source, his comment looks an awful lot like “I’ll have you know that some of my best friends are bankers!”
Robertson could rationalize his bigotry by pointing to the HIV epidemic. Which, come to think of it, is actually not such a bad analogy: In both cases people engaged in behavior that seemed safe at the time based on limited historical data but which had catastrophic results when the future turned out to be radically different from the past.
But he’s not saying that some gay people behaved irresponsibly and ended up hurting a lot of innocent bystanders. He’s saying that gay people are evil. OWS-style rhetoric sounds a lot more like the latter than the former to me.Report
@brandon-berg
Because in terms of DC political heft, GLAAD and the NAACP are analogous to the US Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable? And because with a (top 350 firms) CEO to worker compensation ratio going from 20:1 (in the 1970’s) to in excess of 200:1 (in the 2000s)*, CEOs have done really poorly over the past four decades?
Repeatedly receiving invitations to White House summits and numerous trade missions with Commerce secretaries, those poor put upon CEOs. How will American politics mistreat them next? What further indignities will these heroes of capitalism be subjected to?! And how dare OWS critique – critique! – investment banker and CEO behavior.
* “Congrats, CEOs! You’re making 273 times the pay of the average worker.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/26/congrats-ceos-youre-making-273-times-the-pay-of-the-average-worker/Report
Even worse than the War on Christmas is the War on Malefactors of Great Wealth.Report
It’s really the Stepin Fetchit view of the Jim Crow South that bothers me far more than the gay statements. Because it’s views like that which lead to entire conservative stories like Obamaphones, welfare queens, and so on. That, oh, our black neighbors were fine until the evil liberal government came in and ruined things.Report
I too find Phil’s adherence to the myth of the happy Jim Crow Negro to be far more perplexing than his opinions about gay people, which strike me as part standard evangelical Christianity and part older male homophobia–not attractive but not surprising. However, Phil wasn’t that old when the Civil Rights movement hit, and he’s certainly educated enough to know that whatever masks black people might have put on for white folks, they were clearly oppressed and none too happy about it. Dreher has brought up on his site that Phil’s views are typical of a lot of older white Southerners who grew up during the era of segregation, but it seems to me that there has to be a whole lot of willful ignorance going on to square their romanticism with the reality of Jim Crow.Report
I think the gay issue is getting more attention for two reasons: A) GLAAD’s involvement (which may or may not have actually had an impact on A&E’s decision) made it front and center and B) I think that part was more obviously offensive to a lot of people. I know many people who would read his comments on blacks in the south during segregation and not immediately recognize the ugliness of them in the same way they would the comments regarding homosexuality.Report
Plus the religion factor… somehow wrapping ugly ideas with the religious flag is supposed to make them more acceptable. I don’t think his defenders are fighting the race battle because they know it’s largely a lost one; but they can claim ground on the gay issue because of religion.Report
Kazzy: the NAACP jumped on this at the same time that GLAAD did, though.
I think the reason we’re only hearing about the gay-related comments in most media is that most of the initial coverage was driven by Robertson’s defenders–and they see his remarks on homosexuality as more defensible.Report
Mike, you really don’t need to defend Phil Robertson to defend hunting or the outdoor lifestyle. While I’m not a hunter I would have been hard-pressed to ride in a pickup as a youth that didn’t have a couple shotgun shells rattling around in it. Some of my best friends yadda yadda.
I gotta tell ya though, I’m more than a little tired of faith being used as a fig leaf to cover and excuse bigotry. As an atheist, my beliefs and opinions, for better or worse, are owned entirely by me. I can’t pawn off responsibility on some sky spook or ancient fairy tale, and you’re (speaking generically here) not getting a pass from me on account of your superstitions.
I also am really impressed by the selective nature of that sort of thing. You noted:
I believe it’s only fair to point out that while his Savior never once mentioned homosexuality, he very explicitly commanded to “Observe the Sabbath and keep it holy.” You could argue over whether recreational hunting breaks that directive (pretty sure it does) but he was filming a video as part of his business at the time, which sure as hell is over the line.Report
But Jesus was talking about Saturday,Report
At this point I’m not entirely convinced that A&E and whatever other powers that be that were involved with the show didn’t simply let this whole thing happen on purpose to roar up some controversy and get a ton of free marketing for their cash cow.
Accordingly I’m relegating Duck Dynasty in my mind back to being those weird fat bearded dudes I occasionally flip past on the TV when I’m channel surfing.Report
Yeah, but it’s free marketing for a show they now can’t sell ad time for. That’s not really helpful from a business standpoint.Report
A&E’s reaction suggests to me that this was in no way intentional. They seemed entirely unprepared for it all.
I don’t think it’s true that they can’t sell ad time for it now, though. From what I’ve read, the advertisers haven’t really been backing out.Report
It is worth noting that the author of the GQ article dropped out of the University of Michigan in shame after his roommate’s girlfriend walked in on him masturbating while watching The Price is Right.Report
Why is that worth noting?Report
Because that means Mr. Duck didn’t say what he said. Which is why ad hominems are relevant and a sufficient answer to any argument.Report
I’ve never thought of masturbating while watching The Price Is Right, but thanks for the idea!
I knew I would find something useful on the internet, if only I kept looking long enough . . .Report
Really? That Bob Barker is something. (But he’s not the host anymore, is he? (Checking…) Oh my God. Never mind.)Report
What about Wheel of Fortune, hmmm?
Thought so.Report
Plinko is sexy.Report
@shazbot9 – huh, I woulda figured you for more of a “Give or Keep” automaton:
Report